http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Save-our-Meadows-arch-from.6721803.jp
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Save our Meadows arch from the jaws of extinction"
(50 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Perhaps they could sponsor it through fines for all those that cant read the 2 foot high 'no cycling' sign painted beneath it?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Perhaps they could sponsor it through fines for all those that cant read the 2 foot high 'no cycling' sign painted beneath it?"
Perhaps, but it's very debatable whether that sign is legally enforceable. Certainly most of the ones in the Meadows/Links aren't.
Lots more here -
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=352#post-2670
Last year CEC was 'promising' to clarify things by removing most of the existing signs/markings.
But This Is Edinburgh.
If the jawbones need refurbishing/re-siting maybe a 'viable' walk/ped solution can be devised...
But This Is Edinburgh.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"The famous jawbone arch on top of North Berwick Law was replaced entirely with a fibreglass replica in 2008 when it became unsafe."
Not sure about that!!
Posted 13 years ago # -
The jawbones are a relic of International Exhibition of Science, Art and Industry held in The Meadows in 1886.
Other things include the sundial and the pillars, made of stones from different quarries, at the ends of Mellville Drive.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'd be willing to donate something on condition that they change the siting to make it easier for cyclists to connect onto the path on the far side. At the moment it's needlessly convoluted - presumably made all the worse by the insistance of Friends of the Meadows that the Land Reform Act didn't happen.
At the moment the smart option seems to be to ride round the side of the pavilion instead of through the arch (i.e. the way people park their cars) to join the bottom of Marchmont Road, but of course then it's a more difficult proposition riding south, because you have to watch out for three different streams of traffic.
Of course, when they spent all that effort remodelling the entire far side of the road and shut off Meadow Place, that would have been a great opportunity to fix the layout. I seem to recall that Friends of the Meadows were strongly against the closure of Meadow Place too, on the grounds that drivers might find the lack of a high-speed rat run around the traffic lights "confusing" and that it would lead to more collisions.
Hmm. This *is* Edinburgh.
MMW is so much wider - and for 22 hours of the day, so much quieter - than many of our city centre cycle facilities that it's just a joke.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Are they the jawbones of a Greenland or Right Whale? Assuming they are jawbones of a whale then likely hunted to near extinction. A curious thing to cycle/walk under I always thought.
Posted 13 years ago # -
When I asked the Council cycling officer 4 years ago, he said that they were pretty much all adopted paths, except for the narrow ones, which makes almost no sense whatsoever, since the narrow paths can be cycled on despite any No Cycling sign remnants, but the slightly wider ones cant. It takes very little extra time to go via MMW; when I'm riding the number of walking students on JW is such that you'd be slaloming the whole time.
Of course that is what some people do. If they are happy with their Clarkson attitude, fine. But it is nice to have a route as a pedestrian that doesnt involve constantly looking over your shoulder, especially when walking with toddlers; likewise MMW is so much better than the shared path beside Argyll Park Terr.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Obeying the law is not a Clarkson attitude. In fact to be honest, blaming people for knowing the law when you'd rather they were ignorant is 100% Clarkson :-)
We've been over this several times - either the paths are adopted roads, in which case a traffic regulation order to ban vehicles must be duly made and signed according to the law - which isn't the case - or they are paths, in which case it's fine to cycle on them (Land Reform Act 2003).
Don't get me wrong - when I'm in the car I wish that cyclists would just use alternative, "better for them and me" routes to get where they're going and out of my way. And when I'm on foot, I wish that cyclists would use alternative, "better for them and me" routes so I didn't have to pay attention to my surroundings.
Think of the canal - it's rediculously bad for having cyclists on it at peak times, and the "space per pedestrian" is, on average, less than the Jawbone Walk. Whenever I go through the Meadows I never feel as uncomfortable on the Jawbone as I do on the canal towpath.
Won't someone stop these Jawbone Terror Cyclists? (Caution: contains a photograph of pedestrians being literally terrorised by a cyclist on the incredibly narrow and treacherous Jawbone Walk)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Irrespective of whether or not the signs are legally-enforcible or not, a pedestrian with little working knowledge of the impact of the Land Reform Act who is walking along a path at the beginning of which "no cycling" is painted might reasonably assume that cycling is not permitted and might therefore take no precautions against them and might therefore be unpleasantly surprised when a cycle slaloms past them, especially if they've approached from MMW or Leamington Walk where the path's segregation and markings create a positive expectation of cyclists. Simply applying the "watch out for people with fewer wheels" guideline and considerately avoiding such paths is hardly onerous when the reward could be an absence of the creation or reinforcement of negative impressions of cyclists.
If the jawbones are disappeared but they wish to keep the name from appearing too random they just need to reconfigure the path, splitting it into two curved paths (one for peds, one for cycles (which could start a little more to the east, perhaps opposite Meadow Place)) which, viewed from above, would have the shape of a baleen whale's mandible.
Posted 13 years ago # -
What he said.
Disclosure: My elder daughter was very upset after being nearly struck by a bike on JW when aged 4 (bike only stopped when I pointed out that she was about to hit my daughter).
Followed the links above, but didnt see anything about the adopted paths not really being adopted because there was no traffic regulation order.
What the Council cycling officer said to me was
“I have been investigating the impact of the Access Reform legislation on the legality of paths for cycling and in particular on the Meadows. I am currently awaiting a legal opinion to confirm my understanding which is as follows:
Paths which have cycle signing are obviously legal for cyclists to use (this is predominantly the Middle Meadow Walk/Leamington Walk route)
Paths which have been adopted by the Council but do not have cycle signing are not legal to cycle on (this is Jawbone Walk/Coronation Walk/Boys Brigade Walk)
Paths in the Meadows which have not been adopted by the Council are legal to cycle on (these are mainly the minor paths between the above paths)I appreciate that this may seem a bit confusing but once we are sure of the legalities the Council will ensure that the paths are signed correctly. Whilst the Council may not be able to use signage banning cyclists on some paths (due to the Access legislation) we do not intend to encourage cycling on these paths where they are not suited for shared use.”
Posted 13 years ago # -
I asked for the basis of the council's stance on this and they told me that the considered every path in Scotland that had existed prior to the 2003 Act to be exempt from it - that was the justification.
I can dig out the actual response (although it's also on here somewhere) but I feel it would be fair to say that I am skeptical about the position that you could be prosecuted because an Act intended to open up access on paths did not, in fact, apply to any paths.
We have had this argument here before, and I'm not interested in rehashing the same ground.
I empathise with people who want to ban cyclists and there are many flashpoints where this is particularly relevant - the blind corners on the Fountainbridge underpass being one example, and pretty much the whole length of the canal being another. In such places the presence of bikes is a direct threat to your ability to have your toddlers running loose, for instance - I get that.
When thinking about the Meadows paths it's probably worth bearing in mind that, under the same Act, people can cycle (as they can walk) anywhere they like on the grass anyway, excepting the cricket greens.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Once again the council drags its feet.
This may or may not be due to fact that legal advice isn't what some people wanted to hear.
I was under the impression that a decision was going to be taken to remove (virtually) all the markings/signage and put in some sort of 'please, don't (this cannot be legally enforced)' notices...
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meadows ban on cyclists 'is illegal'
Published Date: 27 March 2008
By ALAN RODEN
Evening News---------------------------------------------------------------
Posted 13 years ago # -
How bizarre that the comment on that Friends of the Meadows newsletter is almost entirely agreeable. That chap must have been shunned from the next few meetings, I bet! I wonder if he spoke out against the closure of Meadow Place on the grounds that drivers not having a 35mph rat-run around the back of the pedestrian crossing would make it /more/ dangerous...
I did feel he missed the point a little, because surely the reason that people are more courteous to each other when on holiday is because, well, they're on holiday - rather than people on foot and otherwise who are making a daily journey against the clock at a disagreeable hour.
Then again, personally I find "modal conflict" (or whatever you'd call it) to be worst outside of busy periods. Perhaps because people feel they are defending something more valuable in the shape of their recreation time, thus provoking more aggression against cyclists than at "transport time".
Posted 13 years ago # -
Or maybe that journalist wasnt actually right? Definitive legal advice? No such thing until it is tested in court, which leaves the Council in an invidious position; if they remove the signs and there is an accident, some ambulance chasing lawyer will sue on a no win-no fee basis. If they leave them intact, then it might be like the 'no right turn' signs at the bottom of Ardmillan Terrace; not enforceable possibly, but accepted by most.
The Meadow Place closure seems to have worked out much better than I thought it would; doesnt save much time on the bike but feels safer (probably not for pedestrians though; not sure many cyclists are giving way to them where indicated), and the queues of traffic trying to turn right at the bottom of Marchmont Road has diminished; more seem to be turning right into Marchmont Crescent, and going via Argyle Place.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Definitive legal advice? No such thing until it is tested in court, which leaves the Council in an invidious position"
I'm sure there is an element of that, but I think it's mostly CEC inertia.
Posted 13 years ago # -
If it was just inertia they wouldnt have repainted the No Cycling sign at the other end of JW, or had the park warden stand at the Meadow Place end every morning for a couple of weeks enforcing the No Cycling sign last Autumn.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"If it was just inertia they wouldnt..."
Mmm.
Well there's 'corporate inertia'.
And there's 'left hand doesn't know what the right hand thinks'
And there's the gap in the chain between the 'top' decision and work on the ground.
All pure speculation of course...Posted 13 years ago # -
I cycle through Bruntsfield Links and the Meadows to and from work every day. It genuinely concerns me that people consider it appropriate to cycle along narrow paths such as Jawbone Walk. Regardless of its legality, it is clear that these are footpaths as they are too narrow to carry both cyclists and pedestrians safely.
Just as drivers owe cyclists a duty of care due to our relative vulnerability, so cyclists owe pedestrians such care. I really dislike the argument about "rights" here - we often criticise drivers for behaviour which is legal but dangerous on this forum - I cannot see how any cyclist considers using such arguments is appropriate with regards more vulnerable road users (pedestrians).
Posted 13 years ago # -
Thanks morningsider for putting that so well. I have engaged in this debate in the past, and decided to stay out of it this time, but you've summed up the key points really nicely here!
Posted 13 years ago # -
"It genuinely concerns me that people consider it appropriate to cycle along narrow paths such as Jawbone Walk."
There are some on here who take a different view on the grounds of 'careful shared use'
Of course the "careful" bit is a problem.
Personally I think that some paths should be pedestrian only and enforceably so.
The legality of that is (currently) open to legal question/challenge.
What is clear is that many of the markings/signs are NOT legally enforceable.
Some people know this and feel happy ignoring them. Some people assume that this is the case for ALL such signs (this may be true).
There are many people who assume/believe the restrictions are (or should be) accurate.
THIS is the situation that CEC needs to deal with (probably by removing ALL signs) to remove the doubt which exists and creates bad feeling/conflict.
These should be replaced with advisory signs such as 'Cyclists please use alternative paths' - which some people will still choose to ignore - because they can.
OR CEC needs to find a legally secure way of banning cycling - and have the willingness to enforce.
The current situation is unsatisfactory - and has been for several years.
ONCE this is sorted Spokes/CCE/etc. can hail this as "victory for common sense" and call on all people on bikes to behave with the care, courtesy and sense that they may wish other road users did too...
Posted 13 years ago # -
There are some on here who take a different view on the grounds of 'careful shared use' ...Of course the "careful" bit is a problem.
The point is that until they have walked that way with a toddler, or an elderly or infirm person, they have no sense of how worrying it can be to have bikes whizzing this way and that when you're not quite stable on your feet. Ditto dog walkers, of course, who often fail to realise that toddlers may be terrified of their 'nice, friendly' dog. And of course toddlers on balance bikes scare the dickens out of the elderly!
One of the keenest cyclists I know, in his 70s and recuperating from a broken leg was nearly knocked down in West Harrison Park last Sunday, after reports of two similar incidents in recent weeks. What is going on?
Posted 13 years ago # -
I tihnk that was chdot's point though. Careful shared use involves no whizzing - sadly there are varying degrees of, as well as avoidance of, careful.
I think Morningsider has put it best - I've never ridden that way, partly because it's not a route I've ever needed, and partly because even the entranceway to the path, under the Jawbones, just looks too narrow and fiddly for a bike in amongst peds.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"after reports of two similar incidents in recent weeks. What is going on?"
Cluster effect? (As in notice one, notice more)
More people cycling - true.
Increased urban anger, lawlessness, disregard for authority - mmm.
The 'wrong sort of people' taking up 'our' 'pastime'...
Not having wide roads with no parking and slow considerate drivers doesn't help...
I blame the parents -
For not taking their children out cycling.
And the council/schools -
For not doing Cycle Training universally.
And Spokes -
For not promoting Bike Polite more.
And CCE for trying to pretend that riding bikes is "normal".
And Students -
Well they are over here, overly in debt (so can't afford cars) - and get blamed for everything else.
Posted 13 years ago # -
yes, of course, that is what chdot meant!
on a related note, found it interesting that at most recent community council meeting everyone was careful to criticise 'inconsiderate cyclists' not just 'cyclists'.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"yes, of course, that is what chdot meant!"
Thanks.
I seldom know what I mean.
Posted 13 years ago # -
My view on the 'other' Meadows paths (Jawbone Walk, Coronation Walk, Boy's Brigade Walk, Townswomens Guild Walk, and the like), is that there is no need whatsoever for anyone to be cycling on them.
You want to go east to west, or west to east? North Meadow Walk, Melville Drive, or Melville Terrace/Fingal Place/Bruntsfield Links are perfectly good. Bumpy, but good.
You want to go north to south, or south to north? Use Middle Meadow Walk, Home St/Leven St, or Buccleuch St.
You want to go diagonal? You're obviously not planning your through-route properly. See east/west.
As for the Jawbone itself, I agree that you can't subjectively purge history, but the bones themselves have, I think, become more a part of the landscape in people's consciousnesses than remaining a relic from the exhibition.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"there is no need whatsoever for anyone to be cycling on them"
Depends on definition of "need".
One advantage of cycling is the flexibility and (sometimes) ability to go on direct routes that are not open to motor vehicles.
The desire to go the direct route (faster - sometimes - saves energy etc.) is ingrained.
JW, etc., are clearly direct routes.
I think it is perfectly reasonably to encourage people on bikes to take slightly longer routes BUT it would help if the Argyll Place/MMW junction was sorted to be more cycle AND pedestrian friendly.
When I lived in Bruntsfield I avoided JW by going along MMW, Glengyle and Bruntsfield Place.
But I can understand why people would prefer the off road delights of Leamington Walk - and the direct way of getting there.
Obviously 'we' are in danger of 'demanding' 'more' so that we can become a less persecuted minority.
'We' console ourselves by saying we are environmentally friendly and 'underfunded' in terms of infrastructure spend (compared with cars).
But just 'cos the balance is too much in favour of motor vehicles, doesn't mean it can be balanced by further disadvantaging pedestrians.
Posted 13 years ago # -
The bit that get me is the path from Dick place to Meadow place, most of which is marked no cycling, despite being much wider than these other paths. Maybe its the lack of decent lighting on that stretch that makes it unsuitable? Mind you the prom at Porty is no cycling, and covered in toddlers + elderly but the blatant and constant use of this path by middle class considerate cyclists never seems to cause any outcry. Curious.
I too, blame the students.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Despite promising not to bother with the conversation, I can't resist..!
Since I must seem callous, I will state up front that I *never* ride on the canal for the express reason that I think shared use there is such a bad deal for pedestrians that I'm not willing to contribute to it. We actually cycle home to use the car to go to Ratho instead of riding along the canal in around the same length of time.
So, I am not a heartless lycra lout who enjoys nothing better than killing grannies and toddlers.
Nevertheless, I look at the photograph I posted above and really, genuinely find it hard to understand how anyone can claim that there is any physical reason why cycle use outside of the marked paths is inherently unsafe, or that it seems so to people walking.
I spent three years living around the Meadows in the days when I didn't even have a bike, and I never experienced anything walking these paths which would allow me to support such a conclusion.
The idea that the council should seek to ban it more definitively seems laughable when you consider it is expressely legal to ride on the grass!
Instead I see an ugly intolerance which, coming from fellow cyclists, I find rather depressing.
Morningsider insists that the Jawbone Walk is too narrow for a bike and a pedestrian to use it at the same time, but this is self-evidently untrue when you consider it is *several times wider* than many completely uncontroversial mixed facilities.
It also has no sightline problems like many completely uncontroversial mixed facilities (such as the Fountainbridge underpass, which has two 90 degree concrete wall turns, to say nothing of the canal).
A lot of what is said I not only understand but agree with. Who would bother riding along the Jawbone on the festival Sunday when you'd be doing well to travel at 2mph? Who would bother riding under the actual jawbone when you can either ride across from the bottom of Meadow Place or Marchmont Road and avoid the whole snarl?
However, I don't agree that something should be banned simply because it annoys people or because your personal preference would be to do something else.
I also don't understand the sentiment expressed by "there is no need whatsoever for anyone to be cycling on them" (sorry Arellcat!).
Let's be frank - there is no *need* for anyone to ride anywhere in the Meadows, or along the canal, or under the West Approach Road. There is nobody who could not make a journey if these areas were pedestrian only, and so there is demonstrably no 'need'.
All that there is, is desire. What I see on the Jawbone is simply a reactionary desire for exclusive use, not a safety issue. At best, there is a legitimate argument that the enjoyment of exclusive use for pedestrians trumps the right of free movement for others, but this applies equally to the whole Meadows (and to all other shared cycle facilities).
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
